Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[Thumpalumpacus]

All a Gospel is is an alleged account of the life of Jesus. That's what Gospel means.

Pardon my correction, but that is the point. The Gospels are the essence of the Jesus-claim. Citing them as evidence of his existence is akin to setting the murderer free based on his protestations of innocence.

The Gospels are the claim: they assert the existence of the avatar of a deity. Citing them as evidence for said avatar's existence is by definition circular.

[The Grand Nudger]

They also assert the existence of "jesus the man".  So regardless of divinity......

[Cephus]

I am uncertain why I should be concerned IF a historical figure named Jesus actually existed as a normal man.  What does that have to do with worshipping him as the son of god, for either way, divine or merely human, he is unworthy of worship.

The historical consensus on Jesus is not debating whether he's worthy of worship - it's simply showing who he was, which was an obscure preacher in 1st century Judea.

But that's not what's described in the Bible.  The Jesus that is described in the Bible, the guy born of a virgin who does miracles and rose from the dead, that guy never existed and nobody credible seriously thinks he did.  What people think might be real is some guy who is tangentially related to the Biblical Jesus myth.  That's not Jesus though.  That's someone else.  Christians are desperate to ignore that difference however.

[Minimalist]

They also assert the existence of "jesus the man".  So regardless of divinity......

That's not what early xtians thought of them.  Caused a shitstorm of controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

[abaris]

And let's not forget that Arianism was one of the most influencal streams of the early Middle Ages. Especially with the Germanic tribes flooding into the Italian peninsula, Spain and Northern Africa. Arians didn't believe in the trinity but in a kind of politheism where Jesus was a seperate entity than god, his father.

[Mudhammam]

"Even without looking at the Gospel material"?

How can the Gospels be counted as evidence of Jesus? They are the claim.

Principle of parsimony. The simplest, most logical explanation for the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is that there was a man whom his followers viewed as god-like.

[Minimalist]

Does that apply to King Arthur, too?  Or are you selective in applying the principle.

[Mudhammam]

Does that apply to King Arthur, too?  Or are you selective in applying the principle.

I don't know much about him except that the first mention of him dates to about 300 years after he supposedly lived, which sort of demonstrates how much more valuable our source material for Jesus of Nazareth is, but taking my cue from those who do know a thing or two, yeah, that would apply to King Arthur too.

The details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of folklore and literary invention, and his historical existence is debated and disputed by modern historians.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur

[The Grand Nudger]

"Even without looking at the Gospel material"?

How can the Gospels be counted as evidence of Jesus? They are the claim.

Principle of parsimony. The simplest, most logical explanation for the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is that there was a man whom his followers viewed as god-like.

Parsimony....inventing an anyman to fill in where none is required or present is parsimony....lol?  Huh, guess we take that term different ways you and I.  The simplest, most logical explanation for Dracula is a blood drinking transylvanian count........, of course, I assume?

[robvalue]

To me, the simplest explanation for any piece of writing is always the same. And I can tell you the explanation without even looking at what the writing says.

Of course, I may well come to a more likely scenario once I read it. If I have a good enough reason to do so.